to finally be able to tax the wealthiest americans, to deal with some ofthedeficit. yoursense of whether president obama and your fellow democrats in the senate and house will stay the course on this or will eventually compromise in a way that many progressives would regret? >> first of all, we have a divided government. president obama's election said one message, the election of republican house of representatives since another. the actually, working at odds here. you have republicans who will not raise taxes for anyone making more than $250,000 a year, and looking at entitlement cuts. yet democrats that say you have any taxes for those who make under $250,000 and no cuts to the low-you had democrats as a you have no taxes for those -- no tax cuts for those making under $250,000. we're going the wrong direction. why have we been talking about stimulating the economy through jobs? we seem to accept a certain amount of unemployment as being necessary for the proper functioning of the economy, so that for corporations and will keep wages low. that is baloney. we are creating our own econo

of these politicians, mayors, governors should take a half cut pay to pay downthedeficit. host:we are going to move on to darwin on the line for independents. caller: it is like the pentelikon, back in 1968 i was even fighting with the pentagon over budgets. you always had to have everything kept the same. nobody was going to change anything because next year there were going to pop everything by 10%. they told you got to worry because you would get 10% more. that goes all the way back to 1968. they just keep dwelling on one thing over and over again. i would like to know from the boston globe or the herald is asking for pictures of -- host: let's move on to del on the line for democrats. caller: this is an outrage that they cannot tax the wealthy by an additional 4%. this is the lowest tax rates that have ever paid in the united states. considering that their incomes are vast compared to what they used to be many years ago when they paid a much higher rate, they are wealthy and they do not want to pay. 4% does not amount to enough to affect the deficit. maybe we ought to consider 15% or something

-defense cuts, and you have this huge amount ofrevenue,deficitreduction,it is hard to see what demands the republicans think will be easier to make, the new year. guest: you have also seen all the polls that show that the president's popular the is close to an all-time high, and the polls show definitively that the republicans will be blinged if we go over the cliff and taxes go up. that was before the debacle of this past week. it has been a bad week for conservatives. it sounds to me like they're continuing to be a little delusional. host: when you make a public threat, you better be able to back up -- guest: washington wizards might have had a worse week. from a political standpoint, this was a monumental embarrassment for the speaker. host: i want to make sure i get the title of this correct. "the guide to the federal budget." how big is the federal budget? how much do take in? , to do spend? how much is $16 trillion? >> total payroll spending will be about $3.80 trillion. revenues will be about $2.80 trillion. we have a deficit of about $1 trillion. that is for fiscal 2013. that a

theirdeficitandwe cannot, the world will switch to euros. there is a tweet here -- guest: the cbo is supposed to be a political, but it cannot be too alarmist. if we go over the cliff, we are looking on january 1, some of this is already milton. about $600 million -- $650 billion in spending cuts and tax increases. that is about 4% of gdp. that is an enormous negative stimulus. a detraction from demand. that would surely be a deep recession. the cbo relies on simulation models that did not take into consideration investor sentiment, the reaction of consumers, and so forth that they wholly lose confidence in their government. if we go over the cliff and stay there, people will start to conclude that washington cannot manage its affairs. all bets are off on economic modeling. it is impossible to say what happened that other than it would be very negative. host: one piece that you actually did right has this headline -- take the idea of a recession next year. with the perspective of everything else going on, when a recession look like? guest: it depends on how we get there. if we have a fiscal c

, because when g.o.p. is in the whitehouse,deficitsdon'tmatter. can you tell us a little bit about the philosophies of the two candidates? well now, the president and the ex-candidate. will the situation be that much different if there was a different man in the white house? guest: well, look, it's an interesting question. it is certainly true that tax policy was one of the key sort of issues in the last election. and actually, the debate that we're having if it sounds familiar, it's because we've had it several times before. it was really a similar debate to what we had in 2008. we had the same debate in 2010. we had a similar debate in 2011 when we were dealing with the debt ceiling issue the first time around. and we dealt it with it in the last election. and the differences have always been that president obama has maintained that tax cuts should be allowed to expire for people making more than $250,000. mitt romney called for extending all the tax cuts fully. and making other changes to the tax code. but, you know, i mean, he wouldn't be in office right now anyway. so i think

trilliondollardeficits, bothsides are being decided, and start talking about this. stuart: what is the media doing? >> typically cobbling barack obama. this guy is filing his nails while the republicans twist themselves into knots. the media are giving obama a complete pass on this one and not holding his feet to the fire on anything and keeping the gun fire on the republicans at all times. the media have been just about as silent as anyone else. all the media accept for stuart varney. stuart: flattery is the fondest milk in television. i have a prediction from you. i personally think there will be some kind of awful last-minute deal, tax the rich, don't cut spending, ignore the debt. i think that will happen. what is your prediction? >> i will put my kids and your prediction. republicans will take another step, go back another five to ten yards on the football field and the problem will just get even worse. stuart: do you think -- [talking over each other] >> the tech increase, don't anybody forget this, according to three different studies, is going to cost the american econom

important to step back and see the fact that we have already -- there are three poorts parts ofthisdeficitreductionstool. we've already in the past two years passed $1.6 trillion in spending cuts. we've passed over $700 billion in savings in medicare through reforms like cutting back on overpayments to insurance companies. the one piece of this puzzle that we've not been able to get any support for is making sure that the wealthiest among us help solve this problem by being willing to pay a little bit more to be part of the solution. so we have sent a bill to the house back in july, bipartisan bill that says what -- everybody says they don't want middle-class families to have their taxes go up, well, fine. why don't we start with something we can agree on, which is that? and just pass that. why doesn't the house just pass that? but as we know, the speaker couldn't even pass his own plan to say that up to a million dollars was exempt from tax cuts. so what they're doing is holding middle-class families hostage right now, trying to find some maneuver where the wealthiest people continue to

while extending unemployment insurance and laying the groundworkfordeficitreduction.>> i expect democrats and republicans to get back to washington and have it pass both chambers. and i will immediately sign that legislation into law. >> reporter: house speaker john boehner also headed home after a bruising week. his own conference refused to back his proposal, which would have allowed taxes to go up on the wealthy, delivering a stinging blow to his leadership. today he faulted the president and congressional democrats for the impasse. >> unfortunately, the president and senate democrats have vowed to reject and veto all of our proposals while failing to offer responsible solutions of their own. >> reporter: the prospects for a deal remain grim. on friday senate republican leader mitch mcconnell said his strategy forward is unclear, but stressed time is running out. >> the u.s. economy is at stake here. millions upon millions of families are counting on us to do something. >> reporter: while the president expressed measured confidence -- >> call me a hopeless optimist but i actu

in spending. that is a reason you have trilliondollardeficit. weare borrowing $.40 of every dollar that we spent. i mentioned the gdp figures. the historic average is that the government takes an 18% of gdp and spends 20% of gdp in spending. about 2% is a manageable deficit. the problem over the past three years is that we are at 60% and 24%. that gap is too big. at what level do you set the tax rate and what level do you have the spending rates? taxing a 24% will probably never happen. the question is, where is that middle ground do you end up? the bowles-simpson commission had 21%. members of congress have insisted that it does not go higher than 18%. that is the fight that will play out over the next couple of years. how much do we tax? how much are we paying for it? host: we want to remind our viewers and listeners of the consequences of going off of the fiscal cliff. in terms of the tax increases, it would mean another $221 billion. .he bush tax cuts expiring i payroll tax relief would expire and raise another $95 billion. i dish the provisions expire -- additional provisions expire f

anddeficitreduction.that's an achievable goal. that can get done in ten days. >> yesterday the house speaker john boehner failed to garner enough support from his own party to even hold a vote on his plan to raise taxes for those with an income over $1 million. >> while we may have not been able to get the votes last night, to avert 99.81% of the tax increases, i don't think they weren't taking that out on me. they were dealing with the perception that somebody might accuse them of raising taxes. >> "outfront" tonight, chief white house correspondent jessica yellin and dana bash. ladies, nice to see both of you. jessica, we'll start with you. the president's message was short and sweet and kind of basic. what do you think is different this time around in what he is saying? >> well, what's different is it is less than two weeks until the new year and the president is about to leave for hawaii, and congress is going to be gone for christmas, too, and you know there is no more effective motivator for capitol hill than pressure, and they have it right now. what the president has done tod

cutthedeficitbudget.the court took issue with not with the tax, but taxing household equally. and for the latest headlines log onto foxnews.com. you're watching the most powerful name in news, fox news channel. >> paul: welcome back to this special he edition, journal he had t.editorial report. and this year continued high unemployment and slow economic growth. what can we expect in 2013? we're back with dan henninger, mary anastasia o'grady and dan moore. mary explain the slow growth and the markets. >> if respect to the markets, i would say if you look at a chart for, for example, the s&p 500, you go back to april of 2011 to october of 2012. you're basically flat. there's a lot of churning up and down, but in the last months a pickup there and certainly, from the end of -- from the beginning of this year we saw a run on the market, but you don't have a great return if you're a long-term investor. >> paul: right, so, okay, if growth is still slow, okay, why are-- and some people are still investing in companies and the corporate balance sheets earnings have been pretty good,

worried about the state of our country. we run for years over a trilliondollardeficitsandit is time for us to do a big fiscal deal in washington that really drives down the trajectory of our debt. we have to do it. and then come in the senate, we have to get back to regular budgeting. i serve on the senate budget committee. since i have been! =-- since i have been te here, even before that, three years since we have any budget in the senate. -- since i have been there, even before that, three years since we have done a budget in the senate. >> new hampshire is a great model. >> absolutely. this to me is the number one overriding priority. and i want to be part of making sure that we finally start getting on the right fiscal track. it is not easy. but there is no easy answer to all of this. and programs like social security and medicare, we have to start talking about how we reform them. because, for example, medicare goes bankrupt in 2024. that is not that far off for people in this room who rely on it. or social security in 2033. we have to have those hard discussions right now to

on more economic growthanddeficitreduction.you guys, i can hear you over there. i believe such a proposal could pass both houses with bipartisan majorities. as long as those leaders allow it, to actually come to a vote. if members of the house or the senate want to vote no, they can, but we should let everybody vote. >> i would actually really like to know who he was shushing there. but to his main point, here's what the president intends to do. senators reid and mcconnell will try to come to a deal. if they fail, the white house and harry reid are going to try to jam through a bill that increases taxes on rich people and extends unemployment insurance, which are the two key democratic priorities. they'll pretty much dare republicans to block it. and republicans probably won't be able to, at least not for long. here's johnny isaacson, a republican senator from georgia, over the weekend. >> if we get down to the end of this year, and the only choice we have is to save taxes going up on the middle class, then i would support that. >> last weekend, "the wall street journal" h

class, >> and lays the groundwork for further work on both growthanddeficitreduction.that's an achievable goal. that can get done in ten days. >> bayne never >> holman: in his appearance earlier, boehner, flanked by majority leader eric cantor, sounded doubtful, but sa he' wilingo try. >> how we get there, god only knows. all i'm telling you is that eric and i, and our team here are committed to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the capitol, and the white house to address that. >> holman: still, as the capitol emptied for the holiday, the clock was ticking down to more than $500 billion in spending cuts and tax hikes kicking in. >> woodruff: and to the analysis of shields and gerson-- syndicated columnist mark shields and "washington post" columnist michael gerson. david brooks is off tonight. gentlemen, good to have youit us. >> good to be with you. >> woodruff: so mark, the fiscal cliff, it's still with us. it's still out there. the president made a last minute statement late this afternoon. where does everything stand? >> nobody know

. there are basically three pieces to solvingthedeficit, right?one is spending and we have agrowed to $1.6 trillion in spending cuts in the last two years and the other is spending cuts. we put forth spending cuts of over $700 billion. not cutting care to seniors, but cutting overpayments to insurance companies. the burden of the deficit must not just be on the middle class. the wealthy have to kick in. we sent a bill to the house in july that says 98% americans, income up to 240,000 would continue to get tax cuts. above that, people would may more. they made excuses, the bill wasn't right. we have the bill in the house, the bill in the senate. the bottom line is when the speaker put on the floor last week the bill that would say, okay, how about everybody up to $1 million gets a tax cut. couldn't even pass that. we're stuck. we're really stuck. >> the house gop said they put a bill forward in august. so everyone sort of covering themselves saying we got a bill. we didn't ask to go over the fiscal cliff. i'm kind of glad at 3:00 this afternoon, both sides of the house leader smip and house are meet

of extremists in terms of our debtanddeficit, thatwe're going to all of a sudden change that? and why are we changing that? especially since most of this money isn't going to be spent, isn't even going to be initialized for at least two years. i'd ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside and amendment 3370 be called up. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, for himself and mr. mccain, proposes an amendment numbered 3370, as modified. mr. coburn: i'd ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: and per the request of senator schumer, i put a division in this amendment so we would have two votes on it separating out the fisheries because he thought that was important. i was glad to accommodate his needs. the main -- mr. schumer: will the gentleman yield? mr. coburn: i would be happy to. mr. schumer: i just want to thank him, he was gracious. there are two separate issues here, one of them i think most of us on this side would accept. the

a little bit more in taxes to help reducethedeficit. itwas rejected by his own party, and so then he sent his members home on vacation. i'm over on the senate side right now, they are in session. speaker boehner let the house members go, so first he walked out of the talks with the president, and then he sent everybody home on vacation. obviously we need to have compromise. the senate bill that passed out of the senate many, many weeks ago had compromise. it was passed by republicans and democrats. all we're asking is that speaker boehner hold a vote on that bill. i don't know why he's afraid to even hoet a vote. hold a vote. that is allowing the process to work, allow democrats and republicans in the house to dash. gregg: he said they already voted on a plan to extend all the tax cuts. >> but they had a vote in the senate on that plan and they voted it down, and then on a bipartisan basis they passed another bill. gregg: 0 out of time. thanks for taking a few moments to be with us. it's good to be with you. chris van hollen. patti ann: former president george h.w. bush remains in in

support it and its effort as everybody knows onthedeficitreduction.i'm not sure that anybody really listened, at least they put in the effort. that's apolitical, by the way. so in addition, connie noted it was no surprise to her at the time that based on senator simpson's record in the senate and his bipartisanship work, that he would be chasing to be a cochair of the commission. lastly, i just want to say as we understand, mr. hardy had full access to senator simpson's records, diaries, finance, full access. i will say the senator did mention he's been married 57 years, so anybody that gives full access after 57 years, i think that's pretty impressive. but connie just really wanted to welcome everybody and say we are thrilled to be sponsoring this. [applause] >> nowcome i had the pleasure of introducing what i call the bravest man in the world, dawn hardy, author of the book. i don't you could possibly put all this in one book and decide what to leave in and what to take out at a 70s had senator simpson on msnbc cometh and then ann fox, you change the conversation about politics, c

intermediatedeficitproblemand implementation of the cost saving measures strengthened over time in the aca will deal with their long-term health care problem. so we are not that far away and we have other tremendous strengths in our country that would allow us to make the kind of investment to transform the economy, to do with the reality of stagnant wages and a sense of diminished opportunities. we have strengths. we can do it. we need the public to rain and behavior that's destructive and we need political leaders to act forcefully. given enough to bipartisan commissions and searched enough for bipartisan consensus. for sensible hard all politics along these lines. >> norm, i particularly cutie take the money question. a couple political had a great shared that showed that party polarization in congress was directly correlated with increasing concentrations of wealth from increasing equality went together artisan polarization. and the money question you can handle so many different ways. i'm really concerned about it posed citizens united system with a federal election commission that's

in infrastructure and dealing withthedeficitsweremore -- in a more balanced way. it was about what our obligations are to each other. it was about big things. those are very, very big things. i will say that, for all of the critique about whether our campaign was about big things or not, the preoccupations of people who write about that -- and i used to do that for a living -- i don't try to separate myself -- many of them are my best friends -- there is an awful lot of horse race coverage of this presidential race. there is such a preoccupation with who will win and who will lose and so little real interest in what the implications are. >> we were talking about pulling. >> public polling is so voluminous now. any to kids with an abacus can do a poll of the corner grocery store and some national news are in position will cover it as if it is news. and maybe the billion tommy pulled him out today. -- the billy and tommy poll came out today. it can be done sound yet they produce results that were wholly different than what we knew to be the case. yet it would drive coverage. the gallup p

run for years over a trilliondollardeficitsandit is time for us to do a big fiscal deal in washington that really drives down the trajectory of our debt. we have to do it. and then come in the senate, we have to get back to regular budgeting. i serve on the senate budget committee. since i have been! even before that, three years since we have any budget in t senate. -- since i have been there, even before that, three years since we have done a budget in the senate. >> new hampshire is a great model. >> absolutely. this to me is the number one overriding priority. and i want to be part of making sure that we finally start getting on the right fiscal track. it is not easy. but there is no easy answer to all of this. and programs like social security and medicare, we have to start talking about how we reform them. because, for example, medicare goes bankrupt in 2024. that is not that far off for people in this room who rely on it. or social security in 2033. we have to have those discussions right now to strethen america because nobody wants to see us see what happened ieu

to reducethedeficitandthen double it, do you think the american electorate was cognizant of the fact that obama doubled in it instead of cutting it in half? why don't the american people care about the debt of the united states of america? guest: i do think they care about it. the economy is the number-one issue. guess what? then it comes down to things like jobs. then you come to the debt. it is not that americans are out of touch with the idea that the government is spending more money than we are taking in. there is lots of concern about whether or not the chinese is holding our debt. so, americans are very concerned and that the question is how you go about addressing this problem -- are very concerned. the question is how you go about addressing this problem. president obama and the democrats are saying we have a combined problem both in terms of not sufficient taxation and also we have to have cuts in spending. we have to do the cuts in spending over time because you do not want to endanger a very fragile economy. to respond directly to your question, why do i think the elector

that millionaires or people who make more than $250,000, you tax them more that's going to solvethedeficitproblemthat's just not so. i think it would be better for the country if we go over the fiscal cliff. and i'm not sorry this has failed. i do not think this has helped john boehner's speakership. >> that quote right there certainly didn't help the president's stance either. if you tax all the people that make more than 250 k that is the solution. >> the cbo didn't help him either with those numbers because $250,000 tax the cbo has said wouldn't solve the problem. >> this barely makes a dent. >> you have to cut spending obviously and that's what we think that howard dean was alluding to. meanwhile, charles krauthammer had an interesting theory on "special report" last night in which he also tried to figure out what the president's ultimate strategy is and what game the president is playing. i had not heard this theory before. let's listen to charles krauthammer. >> if he was only interested in the budget, in the fiscally balancing it, he would have said i don't care how you get the money. can

i've been working with leaders of both parties on a proposal to getourdeficitundercontrol. avoid tax hikes on the middle class, and to make sure we can spur jobs and economic growth. >> how we get there, god only knows. >> will an agreement bring positive change to the economy? former economic advisor to president reagan, art laffer is here. >> how is everything going? >> going we will on this end. not washington but on this end. there's recap for a second, if you will. the laffer curve that you game famous for. that's your theory on tax rates and revenue and it shows, the laffer curve, if you have a tax rate of zero obviously you correct zero revenue to run the government. if you have a tax rate, your theory holds of 100%, you also probably collect zero in revenue because you've disincentivized people to get to work. somewhere in your curve is the sweet spot of the tax rate that would allow for the most revenue. what is that sweet spot? >> i don't know where it is exactly, obviously. but i know the laffer curve, the operation in the upper income groups is much more sensitive to

Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36 (some duplicates have been removed)